DEOPRASAD SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank as a clerk cum cashier and he was posted at Podi Bachara Branch of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank on transfer. During his service he was infected with the tuberculosis and he was a T.B. patient. Being a patient of contagious disease like tuberculosis, the petitioner was not allowed to remain present on duty by the respondent no.3 Branch Manager of Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank Podi Bachra for fear of getting infected by him and other employees of the Bank. The petitioner was warned by the respondent no.3 to get first treatment and then join the duty. The petitioner was living a secluded life and getting treatment and thus the petitioner was found absent on duty. The management ie Sarguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank initiated a departmental enquiry on the allegation that he remained absent from duty and the head quarter without leave and informing the competent authority. The enquiry officer submitted his report to the respondent No.2 finding the petitioner guilty of misconduct by remaining absent from duty without getting leave, who accepted the report and passed a final order punishing him with major punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the respondent no.1 but the same has been dismissed vide order dtd. 12/10/2010. Hence this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is bad, illegal, perverse and contrary to law. The respondent authorities have failed to consider the unavoidable circumstances under which the petitioner was living a secluded life as a hermitage avoiding social contact with his near dear and other employees of the bank. The appellate Authority has also failed to see that leave applications are not regularly maintained by the office of respondent No.3. Since leave register was not maintained by the respondent no.3 the contention of the petitioner that he has left the application for leave at the resident of the respondent no 3 and he had sent an application for medical leave by post under postal certificate was genuine and probable which was worth consideration. The petitioner also appeared before the respondent no.3 on 10/8/2006 in the bank along with the medical certificate but the manager of Podi Bachara branch of the bank did not allow the petitioner to take over the charge for fear of getting infected, due to this reason petitioner remained absent on his duty. These explanations of the petitioner were most reasonable but the respondent no.1 did not consider the plea of the petitioner. The final order passed by the disciplinary authority, the respondent no 2 after accepting the report of the of the enquiring officer and punishing the petitioner by major punishment by dismissing him from service is injudicious harsh and bad in the eye of the law. The petitioner was denied to have an opportunity of hearing before passing the final order. The respondent no.2 has not applied his judicial mind and has failed to see that any minor punishment would have met the end of the justice. The petitioner was a T.B. patient and he was under treatment and he was admitted in the hospital so many times as such he remained absent under unavoidable circumstances which were not in his control. The respondent no.2 has failed to exercise his judicial discretion under the legal proviso of Rule 22 of Sarguja Keshtriya Gramin Bank (Officer and servants) Rule 2000 that the period of the absence of the petitioner from duty may be treated as leave without pay. The respondents have erred by punishing the petitioner by removing him from service that completely being unmindful, as the petitioner remained absent from duty and his head quarter under unavoidable circumstances. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajinder Kumar vs State of Haryana and another, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 693.